What the definition of ‘intimate relationship’ really means

When Gladys Berejiklian insists she was not “in an intimate relationship” with her boyfriend of five years, she is not talking about sex.

Remember way back when US President Bill Clinton insisted he “did not have sexual relations with that woman Miss Lewinsky?”

The infamous words were uttered during a press conference in January 1998.

“I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky,’’ he said.

“I never told anybody to lie, not a single time. Never. These allegations are false and I need to go back to work for the American people.”

The denial rested on a legal technicality.

Clinton later argued that “the definition included any activity by [me], where [I] was the actor and came in contact with those parts of the bodies”

In other words, it included sex, but not the particular sexual act that the pair engaged in.

Now, NSW Premier Gladys Berejiklian insists she was never in an “intimate relationship” with her boyfriend of five years.

What on earth does she mean? Is she trying to suggest there was no sex and they were holding hands for half a decade?

Well, it turns out she does not mean that at all.

Her use of the phrase “intimate relationship” is a legal term that has nothing to do with sex, but finances.

And it’s the entire basis for her survival strategy to hang on as NSW Premier and argue she has not breached the NSW ministerial code of conduct.

The term “intimate relationship” plays a starring role in the NSW ministerial code of conduct.

Under the Code, Ministers must declare the financial interests of their family members – which includes “any person with whom the Minister is in an intimate personal relationship”.

A “substantial breach” of the Code “may constitute corrupt conduct for the purposes of the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act 1988”.

Former Labor leader Mark Latham argues she broke her own rules under the code.

“The most obvious is you’re supposed to declare, when you’re appointed a Minister or as Premier, the pecuniary interests of the intimate personal relationship that you’re in, and she did none of that for Maguire,” he told Sky News.

“It was a close personal relationship, they have lovey-dovey names for each other, and when he got out of politics the plan was that they would go public and be together,” Mr Latham said.

“So clearly it was an intimate personal relationship – under her own Code of Conduct she has to resign.”

But it turns out that’s not the case according to Ms Berejiklian’s own legal advice.

She believes that an “intimate” relationship, in strict legal terms involves a de facto style relationship with joint finances.

And Ms Berejiklian’s defence rests on the idea that you can have sex with someone and not have an intimate relationship. In other words, it was a friends without financial benefits arrangement.

“I would like to state at the outset Mr Maguire was a colleague of 15 years, he was someone that I trusted,” she told ICAC on Monday.

“That developed into a close personal relationship.”

The terminology is crucial. It’s clearly important to her that ICAC has described the nature of the relationship as “a close, personal relationship” not an intimate one.

Mr Latham added that when Mr Maguire first came to the attention of ICAC in 2018, “she had a responsibility as NSW Premier to march down there and tell them everything she knew right there and then”.

NSW Premier Gladys Berejiklian is under the pump. Picture: Ryan Pierse/Getty Images

“Let’s swap the political parties. Imagine if Kristina Keneally had been sleeping with Eddie Obeid. This is the equivalent of that, and imagine the howls from the Coalition if that had been the case,’’ he said.

But in her press conference on Monday, Ms Berejiklian explained she never had an issue with “two consenting adults” who happen to be members of parliament having sex.

“There are lots of examples of members of parliament who have gone on to have long-term futures together,’’ she said.

“Look, they’re intensely personal questions, but as I said, in my view the relationship didn’t have sufficient status for me to define it in those terms.

“He wasn’t, it was just, it was a close personal relationship, but it did not have sufficient status for me to be able to call him any of those things and I’ve tried to be as frank as possible with everybody who has asked me those questions.”

But the key exchange in the press conference occurs at 4.45pm.

Ms Berejiklian is asked: “Do you think this is in breach of the ministerial code by not declaring pecuniary interests of someone with whom you’re in an intimate personal relationship?”

“No, because the ICAC was very careful in the definition they used in terms of close personal relationship. They were very careful, and I’ve not been accused of any wrongdoing,’’ she said.

In other words, as long as she’s not in an “intimate relationship” with a lover, she doesn’t need to tell the NSW Cabinet who she is having sex with.

Despite the fact that her lover stood to gain from deals involving Badgerys Creek and the Western Sydney airport, she believes she didn’t need to tell anyone in Cabinet that she was in a romantic relationship with Mr Maguire.

It doesn’t really pass the pub test, but the NSW Premier is hoping her legal definition of love, sex and intimacy is enough to ensure she survives.

— with Frank Chung